Scientific examination of signatures under Section 45 Evidence Act is essential for adjudicating disputes involving admitted and disputed handwriting.

The petitioner/plaintiff filed a civil suit for specific performance regarding agricultural land in Gwalior, alleging a written agreement to sell dated 01.07.2017.

During the trial, Respondent No. 4 admitted signatures on a 2004 sale deed but disputed his signatures on a 2005 Bhatwara Panji (partition document).

The petitioner filed an application under Section 45 of the Indian Evidence Act (now Section 39 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam) to have these signatures compared by a handwriting expert.

The Trial Court dismissed the application on 28.04.2026, reasoning the Bhatwara Panji was "ineffective" due to a 2021 order and that the application was delayed.

The petitioner challenged this dismissal under Article 227 of the Constitution.

1. Whether the Trial Court erred in law by rejecting the application for scientific examination of disputed signatures through a handwriting expert.

2. Whether the Bhatwara Panji was a relevant document for expert examination despite previous litigation regarding its status.

Section 45 of the Indian Evidence Act (corresponding to Section 39 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam), which renders the opinions of experts on handwriting a relevant fact.

Rajeshbhai Muljibhai Patel v. State of Gujarat (2020) 3 SCC 794, establishing that scientific examination of signatures assists the court in reaching a just conclusion.

L.S. Trading Company v. Manish Mishra 2010 (4) MPLJ 228, which states that where signatures are material to the controversy, expert examination should ordinarily be allowed in the interest of justice.

The High Court found that the Trial Court's reasoning was based on a factual error; while the Bhatwara Panji was initially set aside in November 2021, it had been restored through review proceedings in January 2022.

Consequently, the document was legally "alive," and its authenticity had a direct bearing on the rights of the parties in the suit for specific performance.

The Court reasoned that since Respondent No. 4 adopted contradictory stands—admitting signatures on one document while denying them on another—scientific comparison was essential for a just adjudication.

The Court dismissed the respondents’ argument regarding delay, noting that the approach of the Trial Court resulted in a denial of an effective opportunity for the petitioner to establish the truth through scientific evidence.

The High Court allowed the Miscellaneous Petition and set aside the order dated 28.04.2026, directing the Trial Court to allow the petitioner’s application under Section 45 of the Indian Evidence Act and take necessary steps for the handwriting expert's examination to proceed.

No order as to costs was made.